What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110710?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Donna Penberthy at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

How much money was awarded in case 5110710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110710?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110710?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Donna Penberthy at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

How much money was awarded in case 5110710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110710?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11287597-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5110710 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Donna Penberthy at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at 11.59pm on Friday 17 January 2025.
Donna Penberthy must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord is a social housing provider. Relevant law
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Termination
The landlord seeks termination pursuant to s 59A of the RTA which states: 59A Termination where breach renders premises uninhabitable (1)This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (2)If the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates. (3)The party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (4)When a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days...
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken as tenant disputed that methamphetamine was used in the premises by anyone during the tenancy.
The Landlord has supplied the results of pre-tenancy lab testing showing results below 0.43 μg/100 cm 2 methamphetamine contamination at the premises.
Individual sampling was carried out on 2 December 2024 and testing has been completed. The contamination levels are above 15 μg /100cm2 in several areas of the home.
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2. Decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm
.
The test results in this case significantly exceed 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy which is at a level that make it uninhabitable.
The landlord provided the statutory notice period under section 59A(4) by giving more than 7 days’ notice for termination. The tenant has not complied with the notice. Accordingly, I determine that the notice terminating the was authorised pursuant to s 59A of the RTA and the tenancy is terminated.
The termination date was discussed at the hearing and the tenant requested it be 17 January 2025 to allow her to vacate the premises. The landlord did not object to this being the termination date. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression.
In having regards to the interests of the parties and the public interest I have not made an order suppressing the tenant’s names and identifying details. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenancy of Donna Penberthy at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited, at 11.59pm on Friday 17 January 2025.
Donna Penberthy must pay Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord is a social housing provider. Relevant law
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Termination
The landlord seeks termination pursuant to s 59A of the RTA which states: 59A Termination where breach renders premises uninhabitable (1)This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (2)If the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates. (3)The party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (4)When a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days...
With any claim before the Tribunal, the onus for establishing the claim sits with the applicant, that is the landlord. It is the landlord that must provide sufficient evidence that methamphetamine was used in the premises by the tenant, or some person on the tenancy with the tenant’s consent.
The landlord must establish that it is likely to have occurred during the tenancy. This would need to be by way of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing being undertaken as tenant disputed that methamphetamine was used in the premises by anyone during the tenancy.
The Landlord has supplied the results of pre-tenancy lab testing showing results below 0.43 μg/100 cm 2 methamphetamine contamination at the premises.
Individual sampling was carried out on 2 December 2024 and testing has been completed. The contamination levels are above 15 μg /100cm2 in several areas of the home.
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The report concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects:
At this time there remains a current New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 , and also a current opinion from the Chief Science Advisor that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2. Decisions of the Court have confirmed that the level to be applied is the level expressed by the Chief Science Advisor, which is that there is no risk when levels of contamination are below 15 μg/100 cm
.
The test results in this case significantly exceed 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The landlord has established there was methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy which is at a level that make it uninhabitable.
The landlord provided the statutory notice period under section 59A(4) by giving more than 7 days’ notice for termination. The tenant has not complied with the notice. Accordingly, I determine that the notice terminating the was authorised pursuant to s 59A of the RTA and the tenancy is terminated.
The termination date was discussed at the hearing and the tenant requested it be 17 January 2025 to allow her to vacate the premises. The landlord did not object to this being the termination date. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression.
In having regards to the interests of the parties and the public interest I have not made an order suppressing the tenant’s names and identifying details. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110710 — Tenancy dispute at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110710 — Tenancy dispute at 28A Anzac Road, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions